Decision ‘08

Obama Did What He Had To Do

Computer issues prevent more than a brief post, but, though Indiana still looks like it will go Clinton by a very small margin, Obama has won North Carolina, big. And that’s really all he needed.

I wavered a bit on Obama, as he was definitely reeling, but I’m back up to 99.9% certainty: the nomination is his…

17 Responses to “Obama Did What He Had To Do”

1 Ryan Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
He was “reeling” in the made-up media sense of the word - i.e., he wasn’t and we all just wanted a better story than the one that existed. Why has this election turned everyone into crazy giddy high school girls? Elections are determined by fundamentals, not personalities or fake scandals.
2 Gulf Coast Bandit Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Well, my predictions were off by a substantial margin. Pretty crazy…
3 Ryan Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
My original predictions: http://decision08.net/2008/03/20/momentum-or-not/#comment-473140

I guess I missed Guam by four votes and Indiana is still slightly up in the air, but I’m fairly happy to have refrained from panicking and changing my mind just because CNN told me to.
4 Chris J. Breisch Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 6:59 am
With far bigger than expected margins in NC and closer than expected in IN, expect a small to medium sized wave of superdelegates moving to Obama in the next couple of weeks. This will effectively end the Clinton candidacy whether she withdraws or not.

Obama odds of securing nomination: 9/10 (highest I’ve ever had him–expect this number to continue to rise with the expected superdelegate wave)
Obama odds of winning White House: 1/3 (up from 1/5)
Odds of dem nomination being decided on first ballot: 1/2 (up from 2/5)
McCain odds of winning White House: 3/5 (steady)
Hillary odds of winning White House: 1/20 (first time published, and I know that 1/3 + 3/5 + 1/20 don’t quite add up to 100% — sue me; split the remaining 1.67% along the same ratios.)
5 Gulf Coast Bandit Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am
You can give the other 1.67 to Al Gore in the slim chance the convention deadlocks.
6 Chris J. Breisch Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I’m not sure that Mr. Gore is even worthy of 1.67%, but sure, what the heck.

As an aside, turnout was very heavy in Indiana, with most precincts in the Indianapolis area reporting higher turnout than the general election in 2006, and some even reporting higher turnout than the general election in 2004!
7 too many steves Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Hillary’s pursuit of the Democrat nomination is over, all that’s left is for her to admit it, to herself (a la the Bosnia “sniper fire” trip). The evidence is incontrovertible, she lost NC and won Indiana with just over 22,000 votes and a two percentage point advantage (which, is really 1%, but I quibble).

Even Bill knows this to be true:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/billsface.html#more
8 Ryan Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 10:51 am
60% chance McCain is the next president? Chris, your ability to be wrong about every single thing in this election is getting a little less funny all the time.
9 Mark Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I’d put McCain’s odds at 45% right now…though I’m sure Ryan will think that’s still far too high…
10 Aaron Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Careful there, Mark. 45%? That’s almost half. You’re sounding a bit triumphalist, don’t you think? Someone who’s well-connected with reality would know that a monkey could defeat McCain in the general election. Anyone who predicts McCain has more than 0% chances of winning is too optimistic about the GOP’s chances to be living in the real world.
11 Ryan Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Mark: 45% sounds about right to me, in the sense that I think Obama’s winning margin will be between 5 and 10%. If the final outcome is 52-47 or 55-45, it’s probably fair to say the other guy had a 45% chance of winning. That might be bad math, I guess, but I would say 45% seems legit. 60% is a fairy tale kind of number. It’s the same kind of insanity as all the Republicans who blamed the 2006 losses on things like earmarks.

Aaron: For seven years now, the GOP has been proven wrong about literally everything. I wouldn’t strain myself too hard trying to make the case that Republicans know the first thing about reality.
12 Jacques Distler Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 7:23 am
t’s the same kind of insanity as all the Republicans who blamed the 2006 losses on things like earmarks.

No, no, Ryan!

The Minneapolis bridge collapse was due to earmarks.

The 2006 loss was because Republicans had “lost their way” and were not pushing through the conservative agenda with sufficient alacrity.

Please try to keep the fantasies straight.
13 Aaron Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Yeah. For instance, George Bush was wrong when he thought that signing Ted Kennedy’s education bill (also known as No Child Left Behind) or Sarbanes-Oxley would get the Democrats off his back, much less be good for education or the economy.

That’ll be one nice thing if Obama is elected: Democrats won’t be able to blame their failed policies on Republicans; nor will they be able to take credit for the Republicans’ good policies (like Clinton did with Welfare Reform and NAFTA).
14 Mark Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Well, Jacques, you scoff, but that is ONE reason the Republicans lost in 2006. Hard-core conservatives were not motivated at all to go the polls, I think that’s undeniable…but the truth is that the Republicans lost in 2006 for many reasons. In addition to the lack of standing by their principles by the conservative leadership, the war was going spectacularly wrong at that time, a leading Republican and possible presidential candidate has just had his ‘macaca’ moment, and there were other scandals floating around at the time.

The public mood was very anti-Republican…even more so than now. I predicted a bad night for the Republicans prior to the election for a couple of weeks, and got hammered by some regulars for my pessimism.

In 2008, it’s a bit early to judge the mood…but the war is still very unpopular, the Republican incumbent is EXTREMELY unpopular, the economy is in a funk…so yeah, McCain’s the underdog.

BUT…he’s a good man with a good biography, and even if you don’t agree with his principles, he largely sticks by them. He’s not a dream candidate, and the Democrats will be favored…but I’m not ready to concede yet…there will be plenty of gaffes and mini-scandals on both sides between now and November, and the economy is showing some signs of perking up slightly, while Iraq is not the issue now it was in 2006.

I’m not engaging in foolhardy optimism - as I said above, I give McCain a 45% shot. I’m a betting man, and if I had to put my money down right now, I’d put it on Obama - but I might hedge with a side bet on McCain just to be safe…
15 Jacques Distler Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
BUT…he’s a good man with a good biography,

He has an amazing biography, and he is, undoubtably, the best of a very weak field of Republican candidates. But since, as you say, winning in November would be a longshot for any Republican, this year was hardly likely to attract a strong field.

and even if you don’t agree with his principles, he largely sticks by them.

McCain has flipflopped on everything from the Bush tax cuts to torture.

There are some “principles” he’s been alarmingly consistent about: expelling Russia from the G8, for instance. He’s had that nutbar idea for a while (he’s been touting it since at least 2005). But, in general, consistency has not been his strong suite.

I give McCain a 45% shot.

I think that’s about right.

If we elected the President based on the popular vote, I would predict an Obama blowout. But, looking at the Electoral College map, he still has a tough hill to climb.
16 Mark Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Well, he’s flipflopped on some issues (he is a politician, is he not?), but I think you’re not giving him enough points for willingness to pick the unpopular side and stick by it (the Gang of 14, Iraq, campaign finance reform)…he has hardly played to the bleachers, so I assume he must be acting on principle (most of the time)…again, in the case of Iraq, I have no doubt you don’t agree with his stand, but he has been consistent, for better or worse…
17 Jacques Distler Says:
May 9th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Well, he’s flipflopped on some issues (he is a politician, is he not?)

He is. And, “when the facts change” it does make sense to re-evaluate one’s positions. But McCain has a completely undeserved reputation for stalwart “straight talk” consistency. And many of his changes in position seem (at least to me) to stem more from political expediency than from any sober re-evaluation of the facts.

I think you’re not giving him enough points for willingness to pick the unpopular side and stick by it (the Gang of 14…

I don’t see that as a matter of principle at all. It was simply a disagreement about tactics. I realize some conservatives thought that the best strategy would have been to “go nuclear” and change the Senate rules. I bet they’re glad now that McCain and others saved them from their own foolishness. They have, after all, spent this Senate session filibustering everything in sight.

…Iraq …

Yep, he hasn’t budged at all from his enthusiastic support for the Iraq war. Some might think that a sober re-evaluation of the facts (see above) might be called for. But, OK, I can see that others might think otherwise.

… campaign finance reform …

Funny you should mention that, given his troubles with the Federal Election Commission. Apparently, his prefered solution is to get the (Republican) Chairman of the FEC booted off the Commission.